Abstract
The combination of advances in assisted reproductive technology and increased social acceptance of nontraditional families has raised issues regarding the legal recognition of multi-parent families. Sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogates have become increasingly involved in the reproductive process and occasionally play a continuing role in the resulting child’s life. When more complex family units subsequently fracture, courts are forced to resolve complicated parentage disputes.
Should there be limits to the recognition of multi-parent families? From a legal perspective, several American and Canadian jurisdictions now recognize that a child can have more than two parents. However, as a constitutional right to a multi-parent family structure is unlikely, individual states must determine whether nontraditional family structures should be legally recognized.
From an ethical perspective, although we should respect the autonomy of prospective parents in selecting the family structure that they deem appropriate, this must be subordinate to the principle of beneficence as it applies to the children of the relationship. Similarly, if we rely on a narrative analysis of the family, rather than traditional bioethical principlism, to inform our moral deliberations, we will reach a comparable conclusion that places the children at the center of the determination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
A.A. v. B.B., [2007] 278 D.L.R. (4th) 519.
Appleton SF. Parents by the numbers. Hofstra Law Rev. 2008;37(1):11–69.
Bartlett KT. Rethinking parenthood as an exclusive status: the need for legal alternatives when the premise of the nuclear family has failed. Virginia Law Rev. 1984;70:879–963.
Bouchard D. The three-parent decision: a case commentary on A.A. v. B.B. Saskatchewan Law Rev. 2007;70:459–78.
Brody H. Stories of sickness. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2002.
Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, 61 Cal.App.4th 1410, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 280 (1998).
California Family Code, §7612 (Deering, 2016).
Charon R. Narrative medicine: honoring the stories of illness. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Children’s Law Reform Act (Ontario), R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890).
Family Law Act (British Columbia), S.B.C. 2011, C. 25, Part 3.
Furrow BR, Greaney TL, Johnson SH, Jost TS, Schwartz RL. Bioethics: health care law and ethics. 7th ed. St. Paul: West Publishing; 2013.
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968).
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. at 479 (1965).
Hunter K. Narrative, literature, and the clinical exercise of practical reason. J Med Philos. 1996;21(3):303–20.
In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197.
Interpretation Act (British Columbia), R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238, ss. 28(3).
Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, 923 A.2d 473 (2007) (PA. Super. Ct.).
Kelly F. Nuclear norms or fluid families? Incorporating lesbian and gay parents and their children into Canadian family law. Can J Family Law. 2004;21:133–78.
Kelly F. Multi-parent families under British Columbia’s new family law act: a challenge to the supremacy of the nuclear family or a method by which to preserve biological ties and opposite-sex parenting? UBC Law Rev. 2014;47:565–95.
Kolata G. Birth of baby with three parents’ DNA marks success for banned technique. New York Times, 27 Sept; 2016. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/health/birth-of-3-parent-baby-a-success-for-controversial-procedure.html?_r=0.
Livingston G. Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family. Pew Research Center. 1998. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/.
Lotz M. The two-parent limitation in ART parentage: old-fashioned law for new-fashioned families. In: Cutas D, Chan S, editors. Families – beyond the nuclear ideal. New York: Bloomsbury; 2012. p. 34–48.
McCarthy J. Principlism or narrative ethics: must we choose between them? J Med Ethics Med Humanit. 2003;29:65–71.
Miller RB. Narrative and casuistry: a response to John Arras. Indiana Law J. 1994;69(4):Article 6.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ______ (2015).
Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).
Roe v. Patton, Case No. 2:15-cv-00253-DB (D. Utah 2015), Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (Document 15).
Sroka J. A mother yesterday, but not today: deficiencies of the uniform parentage act for non-biological parents in same-sex relationships. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev. 2013;47(2):137–84.
UN General Assembly. Convention on the rights of the child, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577; 1989.
Uniform Parentage Act. 2017. Available at: http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/parentage/UPA2017_Final_2017sep22.pdf.
Walker MU. Keeping moral space open: new images of ethics consulting. Hastings Cent Rep. 1993;23(2):33–40.
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Yanke, G. (2018). Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Proliferation of Parents: The More, the Merrier?. In: Campo-Engelstein, L., Burcher, P. (eds) Reproductive Ethics II. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89428-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89429-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)